Overland Content Feedback Thread

SilverBride

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin These progressively more difficult World Bosses, Public Dungeon group event Bosses, and especially the Story Bosses has become a big problem with a lot of players now unable to complete the zone stories.

May we please get some feedback on what the reason for this is? And what can be done so that all players can succeed with the zone story again?

spartaxoxo

World bosses and group event public dungeon bosses are being completed by groups all the time. I've heard of very few people unable to complete the story bosses.

Edit: Almost all the complaints about Ithelia are story spoilers stuff (didn't read them though I'm sure I can guess) and not difficulty.

Edit: I will say I doubt most people can solo the Silorn boss. That boss hits pretty hard and has a lot of health.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think the story bosses are easy for most players, tbh.

I disagree. I've seen a lot of feedback about how hard it's become for many players, both on the forums and in game, and how some are no longer able to complete the stories.

I personally can still complete them, but it's harder on some of my characters than others. And it's certainly a lot less enjoyable for me. I don't even care to do the World Bosses any more, and only do the Public Dungeon group event once per character now because of it, when I used to enjoy doing them several times per character.

It was a real strain finding anyone to help with the group event Boss in Silorn because no one wants to help with it. It's usually easy to get others to come help, but not any more. I waited an hour on one character before I finally got help. And no, I am not able to solo that Boss even on my best character.

[Edit] Regardless of if we find the Bosses too easy or too hard, I think we can both agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Because right now most players are not satisfied with the results.

Theist_VII

spartaxoxo wrote: »

World bosses and group event public dungeon bosses are being completed by groups all the time. I've heard of very few people unable to complete the story bosses.

Edit: Almost all the complaints about Ithelia are story spoilers stuff (didn't read them though I'm sure I can guess) and not difficulty.

Right, the most half-baked builds can power through every quest in the game, even normal trials with just the slightest, and I mean slightest bit of knowledge of skills and game mechanics.

Really, all you need is a heal, and to know how to do a heavy attack from time to time and you will never be impeded in Overland/Questing.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think the story bosses are easy for most players, tbh.

I disagree. I've seen a lot of feedback about how hard it's become for many players, both on the forums and in game, and how some are no longer able to complete the stories.

I personally can still complete them, but it's harder on some of my characters than others. And it's certainly a lot less enjoyable for me. I don't even care to do the World Bosses any more, and only do the Public Dungeon group event once per character now because of it, when I used to enjoy doing them several times per character.

It was a real strain finding anyone to help with the group event Boss in Silorn because no one wants to help with it. It's usually easy to get others to come help, but not any more. I waited an hour on one character before I finally got help. And no, I am not able to solo that Boss even on my best character.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Silorn, I've seen a lot of people struggle with. I have seen very, very few people complain about the story bosses. I can count the number of people who said they can't do those on one hand. Silorn and the World Bosses are a different story. I've seen people say those are too hard or ask for help.

Maitsukas

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Sadly, I think that the video posted above is better evidence that Arcanist will be nerfed than overland quest bosses are too easy.

Just as easy on my sorc
https://youtu.be/lUvzkAXUyD0

And on my sneak thief night blade, which is in gear meant for lowering the detection radius. It's not even a combat character. Yeah, she got to use a few more skills. But at no point did I have to care about adds or worry about my health, and the boss didn't even make it to a second immunity phase from living so long. This boss was easily dispatched by all of my characters, even the weakest one not built for combat.

https://youtu.be/6nOEinB2dbs

An example from my recent Necrom+Gold Road epilogue experience with my low DPS approach. Just heavy armor, sword & shield.

Maitsukas wrote: »

Yesterday evening, I completed the Necrom+Gold Road storyline with my personal Questing/Companion Leveling build and the final 2 boss fights took quite a while to defeat:

The build in detail:

This is something I use if I want a proper challenge in the Zone Stories.

Theist_VII

World Bosses and Public Dungeon Group bosses should not be solo-able by your average player.

They are designed with group play in mind. I keep seeing Silorn pop up, I’m assuming the Group boss is what people find difficult? It literally has Group in the name of the description…

spartaxoxo

Theist_VII wrote: »

World Bosses and Public Dungeon Group bosses should not be solo-able by your average player.

They are designed with group play in mind. I keep seeing Silorn pop up, I’m assuming the Group boss is what people find difficult? It literally has Group in the name of the description…

Public Dungeon group bosses have generally always been fairly easy solos. Silorn is the first one I ever found challenging. I haven't gotten a chance to fight him solo but the last time I fought him I had aggro most of the time and I did end up dying right before the boss did. If I was by myself, that would not have been a clear. I'm kind of looking forward to getting to fight him alone and seeing if I can beat him. But, I always end up with other players joining the fray every time I've tried.

Theist_VII

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

World Bosses and Public Dungeon Group bosses should not be solo-able by your average player.

They are designed with group play in mind. I keep seeing Silorn pop up, I’m assuming the Group boss is what people find difficult? It literally has Group in the name of the description…

Public Dungeon group bosses have generally always been fairly easy solos. Silorn is the first one I ever found challenging. I haven't gotten a chance to fight him solo but the last time I fought him I had aggro most of the time and I did end up dying right before the boss did. If I was by myself, that would not have been a clear. I'm kind of looking forward to getting to fight him alone and seeing if I can beat him. But, I always end up with other players joining the fray every time I've tried.

Right, and that’s a problem in and of itself.

Group bosses should not be so easy that players can casually solo them, it’s setting the wrong precedent for their namesake.

SilverBride

Theist_VII wrote: »

World Bosses and Public Dungeon Group bosses should not be solo-able by your average player.

They are designed with group play in mind. I keep seeing Silorn pop up, I’m assuming the Group boss is what people find difficult? It literally has Group in the name of the description…

I agree that a group event Boss should need a group. The problem with the Silorn Boss is that players are not wanting to group up and help with it.

Solo, I can get this Boss to 25% health then the entire floor lights up with fire and I'm immediately done for. This Boss also continues to chase and attack the player during its invulnerable phase, so the player is not only dealing with all the adds but having to kite and dodge the Boss along with them. I hope this isn't another new trend that will be added to more Bosses.

I've found it usually takes a group of at least 3 to defeat them, but have done it with 2 when the other player was really skilled. But as I've mentioned, it's not easy to get a group for them. At least not on PCNA.

[Edit] I've done this Boss on all 7 of my characters and it's been a waiting game and asking repeatedly to get help every time.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

The fact that the bosses are easy for some players doesn't mean that this is how most players find them. These bosses are so hard for many that they can't defeat them and complete the stories. Especially the ones from High Isle and beyond.

Knowing that some players still don't find them difficult enough, will these bosses now become so difficult that only the top players will ever be able to succeed in overland?

I don't think it's the case that most players find them challenging, but more likely that players either enjoy or don't mind easy content. No doubt there are some people who find them legitimately difficult but I'm betting they're a much smaller percentage of the playerbase.

Anyway, I think what we should be taking from these videos is that there is clearly a problem and instead of bemoaning any potentially inadequate/unpopular "fix" from ZOS, instead of squabbling over the insignificant details of a better solution, we could all be pushing ZOS for the substantial and broad change we've already agreed would be a good thing for pages and pages in this thread. Because it's clear that we're all unhappy about what's happening and our interests are basically aligned. Something has to be done to appease players across the spectrum, and that means giving them options in whatever form they take. And if it does ever happen, I think we should try not to worry about what others get out of it as long as we can have our own fun.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The fact that the bosses are easy for some players doesn't mean that this is how most players find them. These bosses are so hard for many that they can't defeat them and complete the stories. Especially the ones from High Isle and beyond.

Knowing that some players still don't find them difficult enough, will these bosses now become so difficult that only the top players will ever be able to succeed in overland?

I don't think it's the case that most players find them challenging, but more likely that players either enjoy or don't mind easy content. No doubt there are some people who find them legitimately difficult but I'm betting they're a much smaller percentage of the playerbase.

There is no indication that it's only a small percentage that find these Bosses challenging. I've heard so many complaints about these Bosses, especially with Gold Road. And it's more than just not enjoying them. There are also new characters and players new to the game that aren't going to be geared and skilled for this level of challenge. They definitely find them challenging. Overland is supposed to be easy enough for all players to do, but these Bosses are completely out of the skill range for a lot of these players.

The Incursions are also not well received by a lot of players. I personally like the way players need to go outside the Incursion to defeat the 3 enemies before engaging the final Boss. But players generally don't enjoy long drawn out fights and there are often players just standing at the Incursion while others do the work of defeating the other 3 enemies.

This is something that needs to be addressed.

spartaxoxo

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

World Bosses and Public Dungeon Group bosses should not be solo-able by your average player.

They are designed with group play in mind. I keep seeing Silorn pop up, I’m assuming the Group boss is what people find difficult? It literally has Group in the name of the description…

Public Dungeon group bosses have generally always been fairly easy solos. Silorn is the first one I ever found challenging. I haven't gotten a chance to fight him solo but the last time I fought him I had aggro most of the time and I did end up dying right before the boss did. If I was by myself, that would not have been a clear. I'm kind of looking forward to getting to fight him alone and seeing if I can beat him. But, I always end up with other players joining the fray every time I've tried.

Right, and that’s a problem in and of itself.

Group bosses should not be so easy that players can casually solo them, it’s setting the wrong precedent for their namesake.

I think the precedent they've set for the last several years is more important than the namesake. I can see why people are annoyed that they changed.

Theist_VII

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

World Bosses and Public Dungeon Group bosses should not be solo-able by your average player.

They are designed with group play in mind. I keep seeing Silorn pop up, I’m assuming the Group boss is what people find difficult? It literally has Group in the name of the description…

Public Dungeon group bosses have generally always been fairly easy solos. Silorn is the first one I ever found challenging. I haven't gotten a chance to fight him solo but the last time I fought him I had aggro most of the time and I did end up dying right before the boss did. If I was by myself, that would not have been a clear. I'm kind of looking forward to getting to fight him alone and seeing if I can beat him. But, I always end up with other players joining the fray every time I've tried.

Right, and that’s a problem in and of itself.

Group bosses should not be so easy that players can casually solo them, it’s setting the wrong precedent for their namesake.

I think the precedent they've set for the last several years is more important than the namesake. I can see why people are annoyed that they changed.

On the contrary, either they should change the name of them and nerf the latest, or they should go back and make all of the old ones an actual thought provoking experience.

There are so many unexplored interactions with ESO, like needing to use the existing damage resistance glyphs, that could make traveling the world more engaging, where right now you don’t have to build into encounters.

What we have is such a lazy design.

Elsonso

SilverBride wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

While I read in here that people might not like different rewards for different difficulties, I never got the impression that ZOS was hung up on that. The only comment I remember them making had to do with the fact that players would not play harder for the same reward. I never got the impression that was off the table, but I did get the impression it was more complicated than it sounds. I might be remembering wrong, and we can't go back and review the comment.

I believe this is what you are referring to. The rest of the transcript is under a spoiler tag (because it's long) in post #33 on Page 2 of this thread.

"Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you’re not going to get anything out of it why do it? The satisfaction's there sure but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time."

Ahh yes. This is also the statement that gives me the impression that the most common setting, after the default, would be to dial it all the way down. If the option was made available.

spartaxoxo

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

World Bosses and Public Dungeon Group bosses should not be solo-able by your average player.

They are designed with group play in mind. I keep seeing Silorn pop up, I’m assuming the Group boss is what people find difficult? It literally has Group in the name of the description…

Public Dungeon group bosses have generally always been fairly easy solos. Silorn is the first one I ever found challenging. I haven't gotten a chance to fight him solo but the last time I fought him I had aggro most of the time and I did end up dying right before the boss did. If I was by myself, that would not have been a clear. I'm kind of looking forward to getting to fight him alone and seeing if I can beat him. But, I always end up with other players joining the fray every time I've tried.

Right, and that’s a problem in and of itself.

Group bosses should not be so easy that players can casually solo them, it’s setting the wrong precedent for their namesake.

I think the precedent they've set for the last several years is more important than the namesake. I can see why people are annoyed that they changed.

On the contrary, either they should change the name of them and nerf the latest, or they should go back and make all of the old ones an actual thought provoking experience.

There are so many unexplored interactions with ESO, like needing to use the existing damage resistance glyphs, that could make traveling the world more engaging, where right now you don’t have to build into encounters.

What we have is such a lazy design.

I don't think any other forced changes are necessary. Idc if they change the name.

Theist_VII

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

World Bosses and Public Dungeon Group bosses should not be solo-able by your average player.

They are designed with group play in mind. I keep seeing Silorn pop up, I’m assuming the Group boss is what people find difficult? It literally has Group in the name of the description…

Public Dungeon group bosses have generally always been fairly easy solos. Silorn is the first one I ever found challenging. I haven't gotten a chance to fight him solo but the last time I fought him I had aggro most of the time and I did end up dying right before the boss did. If I was by myself, that would not have been a clear. I'm kind of looking forward to getting to fight him alone and seeing if I can beat him. But, I always end up with other players joining the fray every time I've tried.

Right, and that’s a problem in and of itself.

Group bosses should not be so easy that players can casually solo them, it’s setting the wrong precedent for their namesake.

I think the precedent they've set for the last several years is more important than the namesake. I can see why people are annoyed that they changed.

On the contrary, either they should change the name of them and nerf the latest, or they should go back and make all of the old ones an actual thought provoking experience.

There are so many unexplored interactions with ESO, like needing to use the existing damage resistance glyphs, that could make traveling the world more engaging, where right now you don’t have to build into encounters.

What we have is such a lazy design.

I don't think any other forced changes are necessary. Idc if they change the name.

And therein lies the problem.

It’s all fun and games, let’s make a harder overland so that our meta builds can just slam right through it for the additional benefits… but wait… we don’t want to actually have to think when playing the game, so don’t raise the difficulty too much.

Like be honest, do you want an engaging game or not? You say, no “forced changes” but the idea is that we wouldn’t be forced into the harder difficulty, so what exactly is the problem with wanting to actually have to build into the content we’re playing? Because it’s inconvenient?

spartaxoxo

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Theist_VII wrote: »

World Bosses and Public Dungeon Group bosses should not be solo-able by your average player.

They are designed with group play in mind. I keep seeing Silorn pop up, I’m assuming the Group boss is what people find difficult? It literally has Group in the name of the description…

Public Dungeon group bosses have generally always been fairly easy solos. Silorn is the first one I ever found challenging. I haven't gotten a chance to fight him solo but the last time I fought him I had aggro most of the time and I did end up dying right before the boss did. If I was by myself, that would not have been a clear. I'm kind of looking forward to getting to fight him alone and seeing if I can beat him. But, I always end up with other players joining the fray every time I've tried.

Right, and that’s a problem in and of itself.

Group bosses should not be so easy that players can casually solo them, it’s setting the wrong precedent for their namesake.

I think the precedent they've set for the last several years is more important than the namesake. I can see why people are annoyed that they changed.

On the contrary, either they should change the name of them and nerf the latest, or they should go back and make all of the old ones an actual thought provoking experience.

There are so many unexplored interactions with ESO, like needing to use the existing damage resistance glyphs, that could make traveling the world more engaging, where right now you don’t have to build into encounters.

What we have is such a lazy design.

I don't think any other forced changes are necessary. Idc if they change the name.

And therein lies the problem.

It’s all fun and games, let’s make a harder overland so that our meta builds can just slam right through it for the additional benefits… but wait… we don’t want to actually have to think when playing the game, so don’t raise the difficulty too much.

Like be honest, do you want an engaging game or not? You say, no “forced changes” but the idea is that we wouldn’t be forced into the harder difficulty, so what exactly is the problem with wanting to actually have to build into the content we’re playing? Because it’s inconvenient?

You talked about how it's not right that the game is designed for public dungeons group events to be soloable. I said that consistency is more important than namesake. You disagreed and said they should go back and redesign old content or nerf Silorn and rename it. I don't want anymore changes that are forced difficulty into others, so I disagreed.

Now you're responding like that post wasn't about the name of public dungeons group event bosses and was about difficulty options.

Because that's what happens every single time I acknowledge even one thing that is inconvenient to the idea of difficulty options, despite the fact I have advocated for them for three years and have posted multiple videos showing why they're necessary. I literally posted three videos like yesterday.

It is honest to be able to acknowledge the pros and cons of an idea. It is honest to be able to acknowledge when the other side has a point. It does not mean you don't have your own opinion.

I never wanted forced difficulty. I wanted difficulty options. I understand that some players can't handle the same things that I do. They should continue to be able to enjoy the game. That shouldn't mean that nothing is done so I can enjoy the story too. All groups of players should be able to enjoy the story not just complete it.

spartaxoxo

As I said earlier, I was excited to solo Silorn because it's the first public dungeon boss that actually seemed like a challenge. Here's what that fight looked like. I actually had to slot a shield. Fun.

https://youtu.be/JTmF4YcK7Ps

Edit: This fight will be easiest on my sorc as it's quite resources intensive and she has the best shield. I plan on trying to solo it on all my other characters as well but I wanted to get the principles of the fight down with the sorc first.

Sarannah

spartaxoxo wrote: »

As I said earlier, I was excited to solo Silorn because it's the first public dungeon boss that actually seemed like a challenge. Here's what that fight looked like. I actually had to slot a shield. Fun.

https://youtu.be/JTmF4YcK7Ps

Edit: This fight will be easiest on my sorc as it's quite resources intensive and she has the best shield. I plan on trying to solo it on all my other characters as well but I wanted to get the principles of the fight down with the sorc first.

Personally I wasn't able to solo him on the character I was on. But looking at that video, that is not how content should work. All you did was kite around for minutes, and mostly heavy attack. That is not engaging or difficult gameplay, that is just tedious and a waste of time.

We have armor, resistances, block, dodge, etc, for a reason, which is to actually engage in the gameplay. Kiting is not gameplay, it is actually avoiding the gameplay entirely. To me this is one of the worst things to encounter in a game.

spartaxoxo

Sarannah wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

As I said earlier, I was excited to solo Silorn because it's the first public dungeon boss that actually seemed like a challenge. Here's what that fight looked like. I actually had to slot a shield. Fun.

https://youtu.be/JTmF4YcK7Ps

Edit: This fight will be easiest on my sorc as it's quite resources intensive and she has the best shield. I plan on trying to solo it on all my other characters as well but I wanted to get the principles of the fight down with the sorc first.

Personally I wasn't able to solo him on the character I was on. But looking at that video, that is not how content should work. All you did was kite around for minutes, and mostly heavy attack. That is not engaging or difficult gameplay, that is just tedious and a waste of time.

We have armor, resistances, block, dodge, etc, for a reason, which is to actually engage in the gameplay. Kiting is not gameplay, it is actually avoiding the gameplay entirely. To me this is one of the worst things to encounter in a game.

It's a squishy character so I kited and shield up. It's a group boss meant to be tanked, so he hit like a Mac truck. I don't see why a DPS kiting a boss meant to be tanked means the gameplay is bad. That's a time tested way for DPS to win games for many years across many MMOs. In addition to kiting, I also had to block and roll dodge. If I messed up, I died and had to start over.

It's a heavy attack sorc that I use because I find the standard builds painful. So, I've built into the heavy attacks on that character.

colossalvoids

Sarannah wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

As I said earlier, I was excited to solo Silorn because it's the first public dungeon boss that actually seemed like a challenge. Here's what that fight looked like. I actually had to slot a shield. Fun.

https://youtu.be/JTmF4YcK7Ps

Edit: This fight will be easiest on my sorc as it's quite resources intensive and she has the best shield. I plan on trying to solo it on all my other characters as well but I wanted to get the principles of the fight down with the sorc first.

Personally I wasn't able to solo him on the character I was on. But looking at that video, that is not how content should work. All you did was kite around for minutes, and mostly heavy attack. That is not engaging or difficult gameplay, that is just tedious and a waste of time.

We have armor, resistances, block, dodge, etc, for a reason, which is to actually engage in the gameplay. Kiting is not gameplay, it is actually avoiding the gameplay entirely. To me this is one of the worst things to encounter in a game.

That's a personal opinion, kiting is absolutely a part of gameplay for a ton of similar games, it's player choice what forms or layers of defence to engage with, their choice definitely is not "avoiding the gameplay". If kiting right was easy as you claim we won't see players dying left and right to basic mechanics in any form of content.

spartaxoxo

Here's a video of me beating it with much less kiting and more blocking. There is not zero kiting because it's a movement based boss who puts down a lot of ground based aoes and summons minions. And I'm not going to stand in stupid.

https://youtu.be/6QpCd6Kh5FM?si=ug_e_ynQCLDgUVgb

And here's how quickly you can die when you mess up the kiting

https://youtu.be/zklMyZF2IcY

I did not kite because I was avoiding gameplay. A lot of times it's better NOT to kite because then you do more damage if you can stand and parse. And a dead boss is a safer boss. But, some fights are more movement based, and kiting is the superior strategy because you take much less damage which means less room for run ending errors.

Muizer

Theist_VII wrote: »

what exactly is the problem with wanting to actually have to build into the content we’re playing? Because it’s inconvenient?

Speaking for myself, because creating builds is time consuming and expensive, often involving a lot of grinding for very small incremental improvements. I suppose you could call that 'difficult', but it's not really the fun kind that I'm looking for.

But you're not wrong to note it's not self evident what 'difficulty' means and it's going to vary a lot what players will consider 'fun' varieties.

Speaking for myself, the fights I enjoy most are the ones where I need to know my enemies, prioritize targets and remain highly mobile. I really dislike it when difficulty comes from the environment though. I don't like it when fights turn into obstacle courses. That is where I would say: if that's what you want, go do dungeons. Don't bring that into overland.

spartaxoxo

Muizer wrote: »

Speaking for myself, the fights I enjoy most are the ones where I need to know my enemies, prioritize targets and remain highly mobile. I really dislike it when difficulty comes from the environment though. I don't like it when fights turn into obstacle courses. That is where I would say: if that's what you want, go do dungeons. Don't bring that into overland.

And personally I really enjoy the occasional obstacle course lol..

Honestly, as long as whatever they decide to do doesn't continue to negatively impact everyone. I hope ZOS course corrects and give us something. I can't say what that something should be, but I whatever it is, I hope that it's optional.

I really dislike this trend of forced difficulty in side activities. It does not make my experience with the story bosses better, it just makes those who want a more casual experience from overland worse. I think that's one of the reasons people left after a chapter drop pretty much faster than ever before. It was not what vets wanted and it's not what casuals wanted. It pleased nobody.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have advocated for them for three years and have posted multiple videos showing why they're necessary.

These videos do not show that anything is necessary. All they show is one player being able to defeat difficult enemies. That is far from everyone's experience. But even if it was there are still a lot of players that enjoy being strong and able to easily defeat enemies, even Bosses.

Increased difficulty is a personal preference, not a necessity.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have advocated for them for three years and have posted multiple videos showing why they're necessary.

These videos do not show that anything is necessary. All they show is one player being able to defeat difficult enemies. That is far from everyone's experience. But even if it was there are still a lot of players that enjoy being strong and able to easily defeat enemies, even Bosses.

Increased difficulty is a personal preference, not a necessity.

The reason for most players driven changes in the game is that a lot of people are complaining about whatever is getting changed. This is why the nerfed herald seekers, for example. A lot of people were complaining about how the increased difficulty of overland was making their experience unpleasant, and ZOS nerfed it. If that is the reason why decreased difficulty is necessary, then it certainly should be a reason why increased difficulty options are necessary too.

TaSheen

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have advocated for them for three years and have posted multiple videos showing why they're necessary.

These videos do not show that anything is necessary. All they show is one player being able to defeat difficult enemies. That is far from everyone's experience. But even if it was there are still a lot of players that enjoy being strong and able to easily defeat enemies, even Bosses.

Increased difficulty is a personal preference, not a necessity.

The reason for most players driven changes in the game is that a lot of people are complaining about whatever is getting changed. This is why the nerfed herald seekers, for example. A lot of people were complaining about how the increased difficulty of overland was making their experience unpleasant, and ZOS nerfed it. If that is the reason why decreased difficulty is necessary, then it certainly should be a reason why increased difficulty options are necessary too.

Well, my objection to the damned herald seekers wasn't difficulty, as I didn't "choose" to engage them: they kept getting pulled onto me by others fighting them near my dig sites! Ultimately, I learned where they were, and if a site popped up in one of those areas, I'd just rescry until I got one where a seeker wasn't.

spartaxoxo

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have advocated for them for three years and have posted multiple videos showing why they're necessary.

These videos do not show that anything is necessary. All they show is one player being able to defeat difficult enemies. That is far from everyone's experience. But even if it was there are still a lot of players that enjoy being strong and able to easily defeat enemies, even Bosses.

Increased difficulty is a personal preference, not a necessity.

The reason for most players driven changes in the game is that a lot of people are complaining about whatever is getting changed. This is why the nerfed herald seekers, for example. A lot of people were complaining about how the increased difficulty of overland was making their experience unpleasant, and ZOS nerfed it. If that is the reason why decreased difficulty is necessary, then it certainly should be a reason why increased difficulty options are necessary too.

Well, my objection to the damned herald seekers wasn't difficulty, as I didn't "choose" to engage them: they kept getting pulled onto me by others fighting them near my dig sites! Ultimately, I learned where they were, and if a site popped up in one of those areas, I'd just rescry until I got one where a seeker wasn't.

They could have resolved that with aggro changes alone but they nerfed the seekers themselves and also lowered the amount needed IIRC.

Elsonso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have advocated for them for three years and have posted multiple videos showing why they're necessary.

These videos do not show that anything is necessary. All they show is one player being able to defeat difficult enemies. That is far from everyone's experience. But even if it was there are still a lot of players that enjoy being strong and able to easily defeat enemies, even Bosses.

Increased difficulty is a personal preference, not a necessity.

The reason for most players driven changes in the game is that a lot of people are complaining about whatever is getting changed. This is why the nerfed herald seekers, for example. A lot of people were complaining about how the increased difficulty of overland was making their experience unpleasant, and ZOS nerfed it. If that is the reason why decreased difficulty is necessary, then it certainly should be a reason why increased difficulty options are necessary too.

Well, my objection to the damned herald seekers wasn't difficulty, as I didn't "choose" to engage them: they kept getting pulled onto me by others fighting them near my dig sites! Ultimately, I learned where they were, and if a site popped up in one of those areas, I'd just rescry until I got one where a seeker wasn't.

They could have resolved that with aggro changes alone but they nerfed the seekers themselves and also lowered the amount needed IIRC.

I don't think that this sort of aggro was the only issue with the seekers, though.